Challenging a "captured" Federal Agency like the FAA will not be easy, but the FAA must be compelled to do a real environmental assessment. The idea that a project of immense scale like NextGen, has no environmental impact, is ludicrous. Please find a way to contact the dedicated folks working to appeal the FAA's "Finding of No Significant Impact" (FONSI), and find a way to support them in their fight to improve the quality of life, and health, of everyone living on the Peninsula.

What is regulatory capture?: Web Link

"Planes' exhaust could be harming communities up to 10 miles from LAX"
LA Times ~ May 29, 2014 Web Link

Thank you Jim Lyons, Mary Jane McCarthy, Frank Rothschild, Tina Nguyen and your neighbors for taking action on this important issue. Airplane noise is a serious problem and it is getting worse every year. FAA noise experts acknowledge that the way the FAA measures airplane noise does not capture the real public health and quality of life impacts of airplane noise on people who live near flight paths. It's time for the courts to recognize this too and say that the DNL standards used by the FAA are not acceptable for determining the significance of airplane noise impacts.

Mark:

it's time for people that buy homes in the flight paths of airports to take responsibility for their decisions. In almost all cases the airports were there long before people purchased their homes. Don't want aircraft noise? Don't buy a home in an airport flight bath or in an area where there are three international airports and multiple small airports.

I am writing to send heartiest congratulations to the Portola Valley community for challenging the FAA abuse.

The amount of suffering in terms of lost sleep, anxiety, emotional distress, global destruction through toxic pollution,concern for buring fossil fuels, decreased learning near schools, and health problems is immense.

It is truly astonishing that a govenment agency perpetrates these abuses as business as usual and is it great PV is standing up.

An equally annoying regular occurrence is student pilots and their instructors using the Woodside area as their classroom--practicing low altitude turns and stalls--on many days during the week and every weekend with suitable weather.

I have found all the concern over airplane noise entertaining. But now that these people are wasting our tax payer money by forcing the FAA to fight their lawsuit I don't find it entertaining. This is a NIMBY issue. People feel because they are wealthy they shouldn't have to be inconvenienced by occasional noise from aircraft. But this sort of inconvenience is part of living in an urban area. Changing the flight paths is only going to move the noise somewhere else and increase CO2 emissions, since the airplanes will probably have to take a less direct routing.

It seems sensible to try to reduce aircraft noise by logistical and technological means whenever and wherever possible. On the other hand, the implied suggestion that traffic be rerouted elsewhere...anywhere else but here...strikes me as another example of heavy users or beneficiaries of a service demanding that the costs be borne by less entitled communities.

Eric,

The real NIMBYs in this situation are the people of San Francisco. SFO is a for profit corporation owned and operated by the City and County of San Francisco. San Francisco operates this large industrial facility in their neighbor San Mateo's back-yard (BY), and dumps the undesirable waste products (noise and pollution) all over the Peninsula, while scrupulously avoiding flights over San Francisco.

Very few flights into, or out of, SFO actually fly over San Francisco, and the few that occasionally do, are typically above 10,000' AGL.

Jetman:

you are factually incorrect when you state that aircraft are "scrupulously" routed away from San Francisco. It's more of your nonsense. I spent two years working in the city and can tell you first hand that large aircraft passed over head all day long.

I suggest you go to SFO's noise abatement site and spend some time using their live flat tracker tool. You will see your statement is false as to not passing over the city and as to altitude.

Menlo Voter,

You have chosen your words very carefully. If you are in the western most part of SF you can SEE aircraft flying the Point Reyes route from the north into SFO, but you can't hear them, because they are typically above 10,000'.

This pattern is very obvious in the illustration of SFO's westerly approach and departure plan, which is in effect 85% of the time (see link below).

SFO westerly approach and departure plan: Web Link

Menlo Voter and Eric Ponteri: You may not be aware of this, but the flight paths were not over Portola Valley when most residents bought their homes. Planes from the Northwest and from Europe use to fly over the Bay. The standard arrival procedure for planes from southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, and South America is to fly along the Big Sur route which is several miles south of Portola Valley. The reason why there has been a dramatic increase in air traffic over our area is because of the FAA's practice of rerouting (or 'vectoring') arriving commercial aircraft over to our communities when the airport is operating above its capacity, which occurs very often. While the standard arrival paths are the most direct routes, vector trafficking results in the aircraft flying loops and circles over us; the latter is neither fuel nor cost efficient and creates tremendous noise for our communities due to the sheer volume as well as the characteristic sharp turns and decelerations of the aircraft.

Eric,

I am a neighbor of yours and think you are a dear man. I'm at the south end of Ladera bordering Westridge. The newer flight patterns fly right above us. In April this year, the Almanac had an article about the issue with an illustration of the new routes. Sadly/ironically, the merger point for the 2 routes is smack dab where we are. My friend 2 blocks away doesn't have the constant noise we have.

As a commercial pilot, do you fly these new routes? I think you mostly do NYC-Europe, so maybe you aren't able to look down when you're over Ladera and see me waving to you. if you have flown them, can you tell us how much discretion a pilot has about altitude on this approach?

For those who think this is a NIMBY or rich issue, Ladera is actually a very closely packed community, with about 2300 people. Many of the lots are about 1/10 of an acre. These routes only recently started flying directly above us and at much lower altitude. So maybe some other community was successful in saying Not In My BackYard and got them shifted over us.

It seems that if they got shifted again just about a mile north, they could come in over the unoccupied areas of Wunderlich, Jasper Ridge, SLAC, and Webb Ranch (though the horses might not like it.)

Or, of course, they could abide by their agreement with our representatives and keep the flights a couple thousand feet higher where the noise isn't as bothersome.

So what is supposed to be done about this? Other towns must suffer but those literally above them can't deal w/the noise?

Planes have frown over my house in Los Altos Hills since I can remember. I hope something can be done about this as its irritating.

Memories,

1. Fly higher. Noise on the ground is cut in half for every additional 1,000' of altitude.

2. Spread the Pain. Aircraft should not fly relentlessly over the same half dozen flight paths.

3. Nighttime Curfew. A half-dozen flights should not be disrupting the sleep and damaging the health of so many people.

concerned:

the routes may have changed, but I'd hazard the airports were all there when you bought your home. I'd have to say if you thought air traffic was going to forever remain the same you were naïve.

Jetman:

I have reviewed the departure plates for SFO here: Web Link

I see nothing that requires aircraft to "scrupulously" avoid flying over San Francisco. What I see are standard rate turns and standard rates of climb which given where the city is in relation to the airport results in higher over flights. Sorry, no "conspiracy" here.

When approaching an airport, naturally the flight elevations are going to be lower. Unless you want to close the airports you're going to hear some noise.

Whew! I had to wait for all the gardeners to go home so I could get enough peace and quiet to hear the planes!

The lawsuit is an exercise in hubris and futility.

We all share the benefits of easy access to a great aviation system and we should all willingly SHARE the associated burdens.

Whatever, Peter- Mr. Pilot and I Fight When It Comes to Surf Air flying over My Home in Atherton, but Residents of Other Peninsula Towns and Cities Should Not Speak Up. You are famous for this double standard.

MP Res:

if you were actually paying attention Peter is on your side. He thinks it is stupid for residents of his town to try and shove their noise off on other cities.

What is truly stupid is for people living in close proximity to three international airports and multiple smaller airports to think they won't be exposed to aircraft noise. duh.

MP Voter: Who said anyone wants to shove the airplane noise onto other cities or towns? Many of the planes arriving into SFO use to loop around the Bay causing minimal disturbance. Now they go down the Peninsula and SFO volume has grown beyond it's capacity as evidenced by the high rate of flight delays compared to other U.S. and international airports.

And if Peter Carpenter could move all the Surf Air flights over to Menlo Park or East Palo Alto, he most certainly would.

"And if Peter Carpenter could move all the Surf Air flights over to Menlo Park or East Palo Alto, he most certainly would."

Clearly you have NOT read my numerous posts arguing that simply moving the problem from Atherton to other communities is WRONG.

MP res:

if you had been paying attention you would know that Peter thinks it's wrong that Atherton residents are trying to shove the noise from Surfair onto other cities.

The high rate of flight delays at SFO are caused by weather and lack of runway separation. During VFR conditions SFO can land planes on parallel runways. When there is overcast they can't. As anyone that has lived here for awhile can tell you, overcast at SFO is not an unusual condition. That's what causes flight delays they're not that it has "grown beyond its capacity."

Every time the possibility of separating the runways so as not to delay flights in poor weather has come up the environmentalists have puppies over the possibility that the bay needs to be filled to accommodate another runway.

Please get your facts straight.

Menlo Voter: You do realize the connection between overcast skies, vector trafficking, and increased noise to MP, PA, PV and Woodside communities? If not, please allow me to help you get your facts straight. On days when there is overcast, which is very frequent as you stated, only one runway is available to land all arriving flights. This cuts down SFO's arrival capacity from 60 flights per hour to 30 flights per hour. How do air traffic controllers deal with this reduced capacity? They delay arrival by diverting the planes from their standard arrival path ('vectoring') over to Woodside, PV and Los Altos Hills where the low-flying jets circle around until they are given the okay to fly even lower over PV and MP.

And despite being a 'capacity-constrained' airport as defined by the FAA due to the runway configuration and frequent overcast, SFO continues to increase its flight volume by 2-5% per year for over a decade now. Our communities suffer from the environmental impact of this growth.

So yes, I do have all my facts straight. This is from attending SFO Roundtable meetings for 10+ years when I used to live in Foster City and sought refuge by moving to West MP only to realize the noise can be as bad especially when there is overcast and/or runways are undergoing construction.

Thank you, thank you,

I am sure there are many ready to support you, and actually you are doing a service to communities who can't afford to do this.

MP Res:

yes, they do some vectoring. But more often they put them in a holding pattern at the Point Reyes VOR. Spend some time watching the arrivals and departures using the flight tracker on SFO's noise website.

Menlo Voter: I have been looking at the flight tracker and the information is current. While what you stated use to be the case, especially for flights on the Pt. Reyes arrival path, vector trafficking over South Bay communities is now more commonly employed by air traffic controllers. Plus about 25-30% of SFO arrival traffic comes from south of here (i.e. the commuter flights from LAX, SNA, SAN, LGB, PHX, etc.) along the Big Sur arrival path and it would not make any sense to put them in a holding pattern over Pt. Reyes. Instead those flights are vectored over to our communities. The airspace above us has essentially become what is equivalent to a holding pattern area except that the planes fly much lower than when they are held over Point Reyes.

A national news network will pick up this story and make Atherton and Menlo look very foolish on this issue.

We live in a metro area with 3 airports -- get some perspective on this non-issue.

If the FAA decides to change the flight route, what .communities will suffer? They have to fly over somebodies houses/apartments.
I do not want them flying over my house either. I lived in San Bruno, right in the path of planes taking off. The noise was horrilbe. Shook the windows. I. Moved. At least there are trees in portola valley and woodside to help purify the air there. That is not the case here, near highway 101

neighbor --
Thank you very much for the clear perspective. It is so refreshing.

If these people who are suing Surf Air are really bothered by noise, why haven't I read about any of them complaining about leaf-blower noise? Heck -- they probably even order their "gardeners" to use those noisy, polluting machines. These people (who complain about the noise from Surf Air planes really look like hypocrites!

Neighbor,

Aircraft noise already is a national news story. Cities all over the country are suffering a dramatic increase in noise ever since the FAA began rolling out a new air control system called "NextGen" about two years ago.

26 congressional representative, including Anna Eshoo, Jackie Speier, Zoe Lofgren, and Mike Honda recently signed a letter to FAA chief Micheal Huerta, calling on the FAA to lower the national aircraft noise standard from 65dB to 55dB.

"Congressional Letter to FAA, Seeking to Reduce Aviation Noise Impacts"
Aviation Impact Reform ~ September 17, 2014 Web Link

NextGen hits New York: Web Link

Peter Carpenter,

"We all share the benefits of easy access to a great aviation system and we should all willingly SHARE the associated burdens."

Interesting Peter, is "SHARE" an acronym, or does it actually refer to sharing the noise?

Clearly some are sharing more than others.

Woodside and Portola Valley are really just small communities spread out over a large area, Many PV/Woodside residents know Jim Lyons, Mary Jane McCarthy, Frank Rothschild, or Tina Nguyen... or know somebody who knows them. Please reach-out to one of these courageous people, and find a way to help them in their fight to protect the health and welfare of everyone on the Peninsula.

"Aircraft noise linked to higher rate of cardiovascular disease"
ABC News ~ October 9, 2013 Web Link

While I don't live in your fair city I do live in an area of Phoenix experiencing the same thing thanks to Next Gen. (Also historic areas of town-vibrant areas of town) I have read through the article and the comments from those within and outside of the community. While I don't proclaim to know the particulars of your situation I do share the concern, pain and frustration these recent changes in aviation flight patters (which by the way the current ones have been in place for years or decades - here for nearly 40 years) in major areas of the country. Smaller communities should be on notice it is happening in the larger flight areas first and then it will be heading to all airports. The ignorance nay the arrogance of those who don't live within the affected areas to tell you to lump it because you live within whatever distance they feel is "close" to the airport are missing the point and the bigger picture. These new changes have planes exiting lower and staying low longer with the reported benefit of fuel savings. While these new patterns are being set now there is nothing in place to say that in within 10 years or less the low flight exit will extend another 5, 10, 20, 30 miles affecting more and more people. And don't expect to be notified. No advance notice. Furthermore for those who said you bought knowing - yes, the patterns were set at the time of purchase and decisions were made based on "those" patterns. These are changes, please understand that. If you want to debate this further then please realize even when a commercial open lot near your home is zoned for a restaurant and a chemical power plant wants open their operation on said lot they have to go through any number of hoops in order to do that and at minimum an open public notice of request for variation - you would be notified, given an opportunity to express how that wouldn't be best for your neighborhood and with enough pressure the variance would not be granged. None of this happens when the FAA wants to make changes. As the demand for "on time" arrivals, departures and mostly fuel cost savings increase so will the likelihood the FAA will continue to make changes to the current flight patterns. Then there is ability of ATC to grant early turns even though they "report" that they (FAA) are not allowed even if asked by Pilots looking to make up lost time or to cut down on the miles flown. You may think those that are standing up and saying no to this are trying to shift it to other neighborhoods you are wrong and naive. I wouldn't want this (our situation here) on anyone else no matter how near or far they are from the airport. This is about finding true "industrial" routes vs residential routes for exits and when that isn't possible at an altitude so that homes do not have to have the thunder of the jets, bellies of the planes just over their rooftops.

Patricia:

I happen to live under these landing aircraft. Doesn't bother me. The only people it seems to bother are those that want to pretend they live in the country somewhere far away form aircraft or airports.

From Phoenix, Arizona. For the last 30 years, flights out of Sky Harbor have headed West 9 miles, over industrial areas, before turning North. Over $230M of federal money has been spent relocating anyone living in that flight path. Suddenly, on Sept 18th of this year, the FAA started turning planes after just 3 miles, directly over downtown, over City Hall, over the State Capital, over new high-rise apartments, and over hundreds of historic neighborhoods in the central city. So to those who say "don't buy near an airport" I say beware, it can suddenly happen to you tomorrow. The FAA is out of control.

The FAA is tasked with safely handling an ever growing volume of air traffic. That is why the flight patterns are changing. That increased volume of traffic is due to increased demand. At least some of that increased demand is coming from those very same neighborhoods that want to complain about it. You can't have it both ways. You can cap the flight volume and see prices go through the roof or you can find a way to safely handle the increased volume driven by increased demand. Things change.

I live on the west side of the Skyline Ridge and have not seen any change in flight paths (I've lived here nearly 30 years and are accustomed to being on the flight path to SFO.) But my experience is probably different than those who live to the east. But I would like to correct a couple of misconceptions I read in the various posts above.

1. SFO is in San Mateo County. While it is owned by the City and County of San Francisco, it is located in unincorporated San Mateo County and is a significant source of property tax revenue, sales tax revenue (and jobs) for San Mateo County.
2. Flights from PHX do not fly the coast route. I'm a frequent business flyer to the Phoenix region and can attest that flights from PHX and LAS come in over the East Bay and fly up the Bay to land at SFO.

Interesting topic. We do not find that being on the flight path is a problem, but the planes are at significantly higher elevation when they fly over La Honda.

Which came first, the chicken or the eggs? Easy answer!
Which came first, the planes or the houses build directly under existing Airways?
Also a simple answer. [part removed.]

I've lived in the Laveen South Mountain are of Phoenix 9-10 miles south west of the airport. I purchased my current home 5 years ago because it was peaceful and quiet and can keep my doors and windows open or sit in my back yard. The FAA (without warning) changed the flight path and lowered the takeoff trajectery by thousands of feet right over my neighborhood.

In response to the standard arguments by FAA apologists: I nor my neighbors purchased near an airport. We were never in the path of low flying planes. There were no notifications or warnings sent regarding the change allowing us to voice our concerns, fight or move. The increased amount of flights and the low flying levels only benefits the airlines by saving them money on fuel. Flights flying in October 2014 are almost the same as October 2013.

If low plane noise and exhaust is OK with you, I have a beautiful 4bdrm, 4bth house you can buy under value.

Patricia & Profgood,

Residents Palo Alto California have formed a citizen's group (www.skypossepaloalto.org) to fight the dramatic increase in commercial aircraft noise effecting many communities on the San Francisco Peninsula. Sky Posse has a website with lots of information, and links to other community organizations throughout the country fighting the FAA's ill-conceived NextGen insanity.

The aircraft noise topic is also being actively discussed in Palo Alto Online's "Town Square", and this might be a good place to post a report on what is happening in Pheonix.

"Making a noise: Officials attempt to influence aircraft regulations"
Palo Alto Online ~ Oct 24, 2014 Web Link

Sky Posse website: Web Link

It doesn't need to be a either/or answer. If the national noise standard were lowered, then technological development would produce quieter aircraft. NASA is studying aircraft noise dynamics and much can be done. Fund the R&D, change the law and long term things probably get better. Truth is that airspace optimization did not seriously consider noise impacts and it should have.

Santa Cruz County residents are outraged by NextGen newly implemented flight path. We got no warnings. The aircraft noise is so loud. We are now fighting FAA to reclaim our quality of life.

For more details:
Web Link
Web Link

Sign the petition: Web Link

The attorneys for the Portola Valley noise group challenging the FAA's finding of "no significant impact" in their environmental assessment completed their legal brief, and made it public several weeks ago.

The brief is really quite scathing. I am surprised the Almanac has not reported anything on this story.

"The brief is really quite scathing."

Please post it so we all can read it.

The last two days of jet noise have been awful. They have been piggybacking for the last two days. really feel angry we have to put up with this and the FAA seems unwilling to do anything about it.

Diane:

you know you live close to an international airport or two, right?

"piggybacking" ??

SFO or the surf flights?

btw - where's the "scathing" brief?

The people who without knowing anything or anyone or any of the circumstances
who say when you buy a house you accept whatever problems come with it are
insane, and these are not arguments at all, they are just dodges.

I've lived in Palo Alto, and this area for over 40 years. If the airways are the
same, which I doubt, the altitude, noise and pollution are not. The assertion
that people must accept whatever was here before they were is ridiculous.

When I moved here there was so much pollution in the air the Dumbarton
bridge seemed to just fade away into the smog most days. You could not
see the East Bay, and you could look to the hills and sometimes on a good
day see that there were hills there, but nothing like the much cleaner air of
today.

Things should be getting better, not the same, not worse.

plane speaker:

The only way you get less aircraft traffic is by reducing the population. Given that isn't going to happen and, in fact, is going in the opposite direction, it's only going to get worse.

I've lived here as long or longer than you. When I first moved here I lived in Sunnyvale under the constant flights of P# Orions. Nobody I knew demanded the Navy stop flying them. they accepted it because they knew it was there when they bought there home. they understood there was nothing they could do about it. The people that are whining about the noise now should have tried living with P3's all day long.

Unlike pollution, which steps can be taken to improve, there are no steps to decrease air traffic. As long as the people of the Bay Area want more frequent, more convenient and cheaper flights there will be maximum air traffic. People can't have it both ways.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Menlo - you have some very faulty thinking and sloppy statements there.

First, technology has made planes larger and quieter ... and this should have
alowed for less noise not more. You're "always going to get worse" comment
is pure mist. When you post all emotional you are bound to be less
rigorous in your arguments.

Second, you don't know how long I have lived here, nor where and what I have
experienced, learned or remembered as significant. I remember the P3s, and I
also remember a lot of people suing the San Jose airport and getting awards
because they ruined their neighborhoods with too much airport noise.

Third, by using the tiresome phrase that people complaining about airport
noise are "whinging" you should you are completely out of it becaues the
implication of that meme is that people must grimly accept trespassed on
their communities, health and pursuit of happiness ... because you think there
is no hope and you are the ultimate arbiter. You're not. Maybe you would
not be so bitter and negative if you had stood up for your rights, or at least
tried to back then instead of insulting people who are doing it now.

Finally, over time the sensible thing to do is to not have airport facilities
in the middle of city spaces, along with regulations about take-offs and
landings and how close housing may be built. You have a very 1900's
point of view.

It's been almost 2 years since you wrote that, I hope you are still alive! ;-)

plane speaker:

you haven't a clue.

I have no problem with airport noise, on the contrary, I expect it. So, I wouldn't have "stood up for my rights" as you say, as I had and have no problem with airport noise. It's part of living in a heavily populated area with THREE international airports and numerous reliever airports in close proximity. I don't live in some fantasy land that given those conditions that there will be no aircraft noise.

The airports were here before the heavy development of cities, so they should just be closed? Great idea. Let's destroy our economy. These airports contribute a huge amount to our local economies. Close them and you destroy that.

Yes, I'm still alive and I still consider those complaining about noise from airports they KNEW were there when they bought their homes to be whiners.

Please go back to your "other community" and let those of us that actually live here deal with it. Thanks.

Reiterating the same tired thing you said before that is wrong doesn't qualify as a clue, just so you know! ;-)

Finally, my "other community" as you so quickly want to dismiss me is Palo Alto. Get your story straight.

plane speaker:

my opinion is "wrong" in YOUR opinion. I find your opinion to be wrong. so, I guess we just agree to disagree.

That is not quite accurate MV, our opinions do disagree, but your facts
are in error, and your opinion is based on them, so draw your own
conclusions. To wit, that it is unavoidable that noise and pollution
will increase. That is just "plane" wrong.

As to urban planning and design, European cities are smart enough
to put their airplorts out of the center of cities when they have the
option. With things like the HyperLoop it would be possible to have
one intercontinental airport that everyone can get to that is in an
area where planes can take-off and land without overflying and
dumping jet fuel exhaust on people.

No matter where an airport is built it will soon be surrounded by both commercial and residential developments.

plane speaker:

The airports were here first and all of the development grew up around them. That is a normal and common occurrence at transportation centers. This area continues to grow, so noise, at least, is likely to grow along with it as the demands for air service increase due to the demand from an increasing population. That has historically been the case and that is a FACT. Europe may do it differently, but we're not Europe and the airports are already in place. So, the effect on their surroundings is unlikely to change unless you close the airports. Are you suggesting that happen? Because if you are, you're dreaming.

Anyone attend the FAA/Surf Air meeting in San Jose last night,

Any resolution